MPA Draft Arrays - FINALLY!!!

[Seacidal]

After much waiting, the DFG has released the draft arrays generated by the Regional Stakeholder Groups (RSG).

The RSG was divided into three "gem" groups -- opal, topaz and lapis -- to develop different "arrays" for consideration.

Each gem group prepared 2 arrays. Sort of a minimum and a maximum array of areas for consideration.

Here are the LAPIS GROUP ARRAYS:

[Seacidal]

Here are the OPAL GROUP ARRAYS:

[Seacidal]

Here are the TOPAZ GROUP ARRAYS:

[DarenDeath]

The tough thing is figuring out what the restrictions for the SMP's and SMCA's. I spent some energy on this in the Northern Ca MLPA. I dive Monterey where we have to be careful about the borders of SMR"s and SMCA's. I'm sending a letter to voice my opinion, even small voices add up.

[rojodiablo]

The tough thing is figuring out what the restrictions for the SMP's and SMCA's. I spent some energy on this in the Northern Ca MLPA. I dive Monterey where we have to be careful about the borders of SMR"s and SMCA's. I'm sending a letter to voice my opinion, even small voices add up.

Science guidelines have been handed down for the SMCA, the one that is tough to decipher is the SMP State Marine Parks. Those have a lot of differing regulations that can be tough to remember.


Thanks Chip. I was going to post them up, but you saved me a trip!!!!:D

[marksman]

Were there any explanations for these maps? Or is that it?

[undrH2Ohntr]

Sorry, I thought I was semi-intelligent:confused: but I don't get it.

Why are there 3 "gem" groups? I understand two maps of the same area, minimum and maximum closure areas.

But why are there 3 sets of 2 maps??? Please explain.

[Holy Mackerel]

I got this info:

Lapis A: Fishing friendly

Lapis B: Preservationist

Opal A: Fishing friendly, includes SMCAs where existing regs limit commercial activities in Santa Monica Bay and Catalina

Opal B: Preservationist

Topaz A: Preservationist

Topaz B: Fishing friendly

There are 9 total proposals for the Science Advisory Team to score. The three outside come from UASC, FIN/FIC, and Baykeeper/ChannelKeeper.

The gem groups Lapis, Opal, and Topaz come from within the process. The MLPA facilitators broke the stakeholder reps into three groups – thus the names.

Each internal workgroup produced two maps, one that minimizes socio-economic impacts to fishing communities (fishing-friendly), and another that would close virtually everything worthwhile (preservationist).

If you look closely, you’ll see each of the fishing-friendly proposals is similar to each other and the FIN/FIC and UASC plans. The same goes for the four preservationist plans. There are slight differences, but each is playing the same tune.

chris

[apneanaut]

After much waiting, the DFG has released the draft arrays generated by the Regional Stakeholder Groups (RSG).

The RSG was divided into three "gem" groups -- opal, topaz and lapis -- to develop different "arrays" for consideration.

Is each gem group made up of representatives from all stakeholder groups, or does each represent a different one?

[zenspearo]

Is each gem group made up of representatives from all stakeholder groups, or does each represent a different one?

Each gem group comprises of representatives from all stakeholder groups. Roughly 20 RSGs per gem group.

[zenspearo]

Were there any explanations for these maps? Or is that it?


Absolutely marksman.

Here is the full explanation.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/scrsg-dprops.asp

For each map (scroll down), you'll see an accompanying "Description of MPAs"

[FreediveShop_HB]

WOW:eek:

that was fun:rolleyes:

thanks Joe

[mnguy]

Each gem group comprises of representatives from all stakeholder groups. Roughly 20 RSGs per gem group.

Yep. Basically they took the 60ish RSG members and broke them into three smaller workgroups. They gave them gem names because it sounds cuter than group A, B or C. Though really, my guess is they did it to make it seem like no group has priority over another as ranking ABC or 123 implies rank and therefore importance. That they are named for 3 low value semiprecious stones comes as no surprise though, state's out of money and all

Of course, the RSG members were about split between consumptives and non-consumptives as a whole so it's only natural that the consumptives get gerrymandered around.